A big nothing scandal. Congressmen were kiting their paychecks, IIRC. It got plenty of airplay, though. I think the Democratic House Maj. Leader Wright had a scandal, too. He was selling his book to PAC for cash, or something like that. Really BS issues, but the corporate media really helped to sell the story of corruption that helped Gingrinch market the "Contract on America".

I heard an educated man say that within the last month. I kid you not. After I blather on about the above comment for a while, I'll tell you that what people were pissed about back in '94 was "the welfare state".

The man is in his 70's. So, needless to say, he has lived through much of the era in which "communism" was the big, big Scary Thing that our various administrations used to keep us in line.

The stuff about "the white race": I replied that I don't even think that "race" is a legitimate scientific concept. Seriously, would someone explain to me how it is that people are classified into "races", yet when I was being taught the classifications of living things in school, I remember that it went like this: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species? (I know someone will correct me if I left any sub-sets out, or if I messed up the order.)

But even if I left any sub-sets out of that list, or messed up the order of the groups, I am positive that way back when I was taught biology, among all those classifications, there was NO "race". Not even when you left out the plants and dealt only with the animals.

At one time, I tried to analogize it to breeds of dogs. Maybe different human races are like different breeds of dogs.... ? Um... well... uh... whatever...

The man who made the comment was well-trained in social sciences, but to my knowledge, he has not studied practical sciences (you know, stuff like physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) since he was an undergraduate. Maybe, since high school.

My point is, what the hell IS a "race"? I have doubts about the whole concept. So this leaves doubt in my mind about this vaunted group that "communism wants to exterminate".

The welfare state: See, this was how it was, see. Our Government was ROBBING us middle class (white) people and giving our money to people who hated us and wanted to shoot us in the grocery store parking lot, so those people could "breed" and produce millions and millions and millions and millions (EEEAAAAHHHH!!!) of people of "dark races" and Amurica was going to be all-black by, I dunno, by the turn of the century, see. OH MY GOD!!!

Yeah, boy. Those dark people, they were really cleanin' up. Why, in the state where I worked in the welfare office, they got a whole $120 per month for a mother and one child! It wasn't enough to pay the rent, though, see. And to get subsidized housing, you had to wait months, maybe a year, on a waiting list. But in the meantime, if the mother took up with some man so she could share incomes with him so she could, like, maybe afford to pay the rent SOMEWHERE, then her welfare (called "Aid to Dependant Children") got cut off.

Wow, yeah, they (and, um, those lighter-complected people who ALSO incidentally got welfare checks) were really livin' high back then before the coming of Welfare Reform.

Anyhow, that's what I remember from the 70's and 80's. People in the middle class waxed indignant about "the welfare state" all the fucking time.

Little did we know that the welfare state of the new century would be one in which financial giants' "check" would be a bit more than $120 per month. Try... oh, I dunno... billions--billions in FREE MONEY to international bankers and other rich people. Now THAT'S a real welfare state!

I think this was the "big story." Bill Clinton AND HIS WIFE (don't forget how Hillary was vilified) tried to "socialize" health care. I kept hearing statements like "do you really want the government to provide health care?" and "Remember the last time you called an office of the government? Remember how long you had to wait? Remember how rude the government employee was?" and on and on... It was very anti-government.

Some didn't like the influence Hillary was having on the process. I saw bumper stickers that read, "Impeach Clinton...and her husband."

corporate welfare plan that made everybody mad, truly a blunder of monumental proportions.

So, we had a plethora of bipartisan scandals, politiwhores were going to jail left and right, Clinton pissed off the unthinking masses with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy that also blew our support among the gay communities. In fact, I can't think of any group that the Clinton administration didn't piss off in the first year.

Gingrich & Co. played it perfectly and the Democrats rolled over like a two-bit whore in a video arcade. The Dems felt betrayed and stayed home, the re base was fired up and turned out in droves.

They were pissed about Clinton's flaming triangulations (i.e., "don't ask, don't tell", HillaryCare, ...) and hopeful that the Rethugs actually articulated a plan.

People now are just pissed at specific Republicans - they still like Republican ideas. This will remain the case until Democrats:1. Actually have ideas (other than to suck less than the Republicans)2. Learn to articulate these actual ideas (we need the "good" versions of the evil Rove and evil OxyRush)

Led by such demagogues as Rush Limbaugh,Talking Head Radio, which in the past had been limited mainly to late night AM stations, was becoming increasingly influential among a large segment of the American population, who were being fed a daily diet of lies and innuendos about President Clinton and his vision for the country. It didn't help matters when the young Clinton started off on the wrong foot by implementing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, which immediately received scorn and ridicule from the right wing. Then there was Hillary's ill-fated attempt to hammer out a national health care plan, behind closed doors, which was ridiculed as being "too secretive", and "too socialistic". The fiasco in Somalia was also blamed on Clinton, even though it was actually a "gift" from his predecessor, Bu$h Senior. With the Fairness Doctrine abolished by Reagan, and the talking heads rousing the rabble, the Republicans took advantage of this manufactured malaise to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

As for articulating ideas, unfiltered messages I have received directly from the Democratic Party have presented many ideas. But all too often today, before they reach the masses these ideas are distorted beyond recognition by the cacophony of media talking heads posing as journalists.

Corporate media is no friend of a Democratic agenda. I'm still trying to figure out what the Republican agenda is, except for the part about privitizing public assets, cutting taxes on the top 3%, and starting endless wars of profit.

comment about not sitting home baking cookies (when there was a HUGE amount of work to be done and she saw herself as a partner/helpmate to her husband - which, um, is, um, kinda what a lot of us wives are...), she had the smarts and the creativity and ingenuity and abilities and the willingness to work hard. Whenever she came up in conversation, the Clinton people presented them as a two-fer - "buy one, get one free."

For myself, I liked the idea, since I'm not one to stay home baking cookies, either. But she did not fit the Stepford Wife stereotype that so many other First Ladies did, so people were just terribly threatened by her. The less enlightened of the public always seems somehow threatened by that. And I could never understand that. I mean, shit, if you have a capable, brilliant, willing, and inventive person available to you - who's willing to help and roll up the ol' sleeves and tackle some really serious problems we all face head-on, instead of just paying lip service to them - why on earth should we turn our back on such a resource? Especially when it's being offered to us on a plate? It seemed to me then, as now, that our problems are so severe and complicated that we need all the brainpower and capability and willingness to try different approaches (since the old ones haven't worked). Who cares who it comes from? Who cares? Well, the knuckledraggers did. And Post 18 (I think) that described the rise of rush and soon enough all the rush-wannabes as the Fairness Doctrine faded into extinction was spot on. You had a combination of this threatening figure and some mad-dog, lying, deceitful voices hammering hour after hour after hour, day after day after day, virtually UNCHALLENGED (nobody else on the air trying to get any different message out), and a lot of people who felt threatened by that threatening figure. lamebaugh gave a voice to all the shitty, resentful, probably guilt-ridden, jealous knuckledraggers who felt somehow personally insulted and diminished by a bright, accomplished woman like Hillary. I think she just reminded them about their own failures.

I've also read a lot about the phenomemon of the so-called "angry white male," angry because "he" feels disenfranchised, diminished, and dumped on, losing jobs to minorities and women, losing that self-esteem thing about being the sole provider and breadwinner (so the little woman can stay home), meantime the factories are closing and the immigrants are coming and the paycheck - if there still is one - can't cover all the bills. So the little woman has to go out and get a job to supplement the family income. And there goes the single-breadwinner's ego again. His efforts aren't enough, so he has to get help from a GIRL. I don't personally know many men who seem threatened to this extent. Most of the guys I know are liberated and enlightened. But there's been a lot written and studied about it as social change and upheaval has moved through the decades and the nation's economics. And lamebaugh and, soon enough, his many copy-cats, gave a voice to all that. They preyed on that and exploited that deep-down hurt. They got rich and powerful doing so. Funny enough, though. As they rose into success and wealth, they didn't bother to take this crowd of angry, resentful, depressed, disillusioned people with them, did they?

I've read quite a bit lately about the perceived appeal of the republi-CON party. Part of that perceived appeal is not to the already rich, but to everybody else who wishes they were rich, and who can be easily convinced that, one day, they'll be rich, too - if they just keep voting republi-CON. But they're not rich, and their interests fit in more with Democrats, but they'd rather hitch their wagons to pie-in-the-sky dreams that the elite "haves" allow to trickle down to the great unwashed. The sad reality is, these people will never get rich believing the lies and distortions and flat-out fictions spun by the republi-CONS. The republi-CONS are only in it for themselves. They don't want to share. They don't want to help anybody too much unless there's something additional in it for them. They only want more - for themselves. They don't want to help the little guy up to their level. They want to secure their own privileges inside those ritzy gated communities that keep the little guy out (to CONSERVE - the root word built into the term "conservative"), and lock in all of their wealth against the taxes that fund EVERYTHING in our country, and the way it looks out for those who have less. Which is a large part of what we have a government for, in the first place, IMO. To handle the things individuals can't do for themselves. Their attitude as a party is IGMFU - I Got Mine, F-U. Screw the little guy. As long as he isn't mooching off the system (and my tax money).

lamebaugh gave a voice to that, though, and it really resonated, ESPECIALLY when you factor in a First Couple who represented a really modern way of running a household - where both partners work, both partners are truly equal participants - and sometimes the woman makes more than the man does. There are co-equals, not one person in a superior position and the other in an inferior position. I like the idea of co-equals. So does my husband. If I'm accomplished or smart or a happening woman, he's not a bit threatened by that. Hell, he gets the benefit of whatever I might contribute. I'm betting that most Democrats understand this. That's just how we are, and what we are. Our egos aren't so delicate that we have to build ourselves up by having somebody else below us in a lesser position.

That, IMO, also contributed to the initial appeal of bush and his cutesy nicknames and his down-home, reg'lar guy humor - and the "he's a guy I could go have a beer with" schtick. But you'll notice that all those cutesy nicknames and down-home, reg'lar guy humor was usually mean-spirited, lots of little put-downs and poking fun at someone else's expense, their height, their baldness, their looks, their weight, their style of dress, their ability to speak another language than English (like when David Gregory asked a French leader a question in French, at a joint press conference with bush, and bush got his nose out of joint about that). They don't like people smarter than they are, or more accomplished, so they try to chop 'em down. Feeds into the pathology of the angry disenfranchised - who's easily fooled into hanging onto those pie-in-the-sky republi-CON promises that you, too, will be rich like us some day.

Republicans were going gangbusters with the liberal hatchet job too. Rush Limbaugh had his own tv show and wasn't quite as batshit as he is now. All the tired old smear tactics worked on boomers that had never heard them before and young voters who didn't know JFK. The JFK of their generation was Reagan, puke I know. But it was the economy and things were more desperate then because you couldn't even find a job to bitch about.

32. It was more than the percentage - - people had been unemployed for years

There was an uptick in employment since the horrible Bush I years, but not enough. And many of the (especially middle class) folks who were unemployed had been so for two or more years. I personally was unemployeed from 1990 to 1994 - - and the job I finally found in 1994 was a minimum wage gig.

You also have to add in the very strong anti-professional-politician undercurrent that has been present in national politics since at least Watergate. It ebbs and flows but it's always there - - how else can you explain a nutcase like Ross Perot (I'm quitting - - no I'm back in the race - - no, I'm quitting!) taking almost 20% of the vote in 1992 - - and over 8% in 1996, when he wasn't even running!

The real genius of the right has been to harness that anti-professional-politician feeling to elect professional politicans (and professional pols who would be the first ones tossed out of office if there ever was a real house cleaning).

It wasn't as bad as trying to find a job in 1980, but good paying work was a lot tougher. Of course, it's even worse now. Some months we don't make any more than we did in 1986, and we had a tough time making ends meet then. And yeah there's jobs now, but there are way more minimum wage jobs than even then. Every time Republicans get into office, the stock market goes up and wages go down - but then that's why the stock market goes up. Would be nice if people would connect that particular set of dots.

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

as he promised them he would during his campaign. The media hyped that big and it upset the usual (large)cast of suspects. Then he appointed his wife to chair a panel looking into universal health care. Strike Two, as per the corporate owned media & the GOP.

I personally support both initiatives, but thought at the time he could have accomplished both goals without being so in-your-face to the conservative masses.

on active duty then. You cannot even imagine what the lifer thought of Bill Clinton then. Social engineering the military is a tough thing to do, and sometimes not a very popular thing either. And don't ask, don't tell did not allow open gay relationships. All it did was supposedly stop the witch hunts.

Behind the driving lust for a whole country to carry on the dribble down voodoo economics of ronnie raygun were the budding talents of rush limpbugger and his cohorts, with their constant haranguing and lying.

The house banking scandal did not amount to very much, but the anger surrounding John Kerry's exposure of international bank fraud, with its republican criminals, as well as the exposure of Bush sr's and raygun's complicity in Iran/contra, which should have gotten them both impeached, was common knowledge and made a lot of people unhappy.

A lot of diehard dumbass warriors from the VietNam conflict were sure that it was democrats who stopped the war and brought down tricky Dick Nixon and they had vowed revenge.

It is one the primary reasons that Todd Tiahrt is my Rep now. Dan Glickman voted for NAFTA and the unions abandonded him. I was a senior in high school. It was the only time I ever remember my dad talking about politics--and he said Glickman sold out the working man.

61. No kidding. Right now my rep. is 300% over the term he promised in '94.

His eighth year in congress I remember him being asked by a reporter about what ever happened to his promise to only stay in office for two terms. He bristled at the question and said "Look, if the voters want me out, they'll vote me out."

The Ds ARE going to get back into power, this fall or in 2008 with the white house ... And, they ARE going to start to tell the american people the harsh truth AND take the shit steps to START to clean the mess up ... AND, the conservatives are going to go ape shit, distort what is going to be done, say SEE WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE TAX AND SPEND or whatever mind boggling crap they come up with ... Things will level out, the country will get complacent again, and cycle will repeat itself ... They will do the small goverment nonsense, get into power, pork it up and create a new mess ...

29. media was depicting all dems in congress as crooks b/c of banking scandal

--Clinton never really got a press honey-moon. I always thought media were so pro Clinton in 92 b/c they were aware of marital problems (Bill + Hilary discussed it all on TV) AND each reporter just knew s/he would be the one to scoop a major scandal like Watergate. (I thought this almost as soon as Bill was in.)

A MAJOR initial fault of Clinton's was that he got off to a rocky start. Some of his first cabinet picks were destroyed in senate confirmation hearings. Remember how Cheney had everything ready to go so that as soon as W was in office they started undoing everything Clinton had done (environment, etc)? and setting up energy task force? and classifying Bush I's papers as well as Clintons? etc?

Also

--1 student told me democrats had been in control of congress his whole life; he wanted to see if republicans would do better. A year or so later he expressed some regrets.

--Also after a year or so, another student ranted on and on about the republican representative she had helped elect. She was black and furious that Steve Largent was saying govt should get out of welfare etc and let churches handle it; no way do they have enuff money, she said. I reminded her I'd told her what the probable result of republicans in power would be; she just nodded and groaned.

I don't think it was so much that the people were looking for an alternative "Republican revolution" as the Democrats were just turned off by the direction Clinton and the DLC were taking the Democratic Party. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Instituting a tax increase on the rich, formenting a national health care policy, changing the militray exclusion of gay people(though thru the lamnetable and unsatisfying don't ask don't tell)....where were Democrats "turned off" because of Clinton?

Perhaps it could have more to do with the Keating 5 (4 of which were Democrats), the banking scandal, the post office scandal etc.

My roommate actually wrote his master thesis on mistrust in government looking at these Congressional scandals.

the Democratic Party was "rotten to the core" with corruption, and sent a bunch of Republicans to Washington to "reform" our governement and clean it up. Personally, I think that was just the year when they had enough Republicans in positions to finally effect the elections, and "take over". I think it had been being planned for years, and Newt was chosen to usher the changing of the guards in. They did a good job, didn't they?

49. The attack on universal health care brought out the repukes in huge

numbers. Hillary was in charge of the health care initiative and that really pissed them off. Also the Dems stayed home and did did not bother to vote. The repugs had their hypocritical contract with America and said that they would change everything in l00 days. It was a huge PR success.

It wasn't even a firearms ban, it banned cosmetic features and the actual weapon was still available for sale, it just couldn't have certain combinations of things like folding stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs. Once we get a decent majority they won't be able to resist the temptation and will maybe try for an actual firearms ban this time.

These things run in cycles anyway, the Democrats will get the majority back and waste the opportunity, just as the Republicans have done and the Democrats did before them and the Republicans did before them......etc and so on.

2. Universal Health Care- Today there are over 46 million uninsured and most health care experts agree a universal system in some form is the only thing that can save our trainwreck of a health care system

3. Tax increase for wealthy- led to one of the greatest economic expansions ever and led to record surpluses

4. Assualt weapons ban- Was a perfectly logical law and now that the Republicans have let it expire, we have dealth with many instances of tragic occasions of gun deaths and near misses such as the recent Missouri AK47 incident

5. Contract with America-write a bunch of lies on a card and people will be dumb enough to believe them

If you don't give the devil his due you will under-estimate him again and the cycle will repeat.

Slow economy due to Reagan and Bush Sr's mismanagement of the economy

Bank scandals blown all out proportion

failed health care plan due to other damn Dems fucking over the US for their own 15 minutes in the spotlight to stab Clinton in the back

higher taxes that ended up balancing out the budget and helping the economy for 8 years of prosperity

gays in the military - feeding into bigotry and expanding the southern strategy

Assault gun ban feeding into stereotype of Dems as anti-gun wusses

The Democrats were a circular firing squad with every other liberal congressman screaming the Clintons were too conservative and every other conservative Democrat from the South stabbing the Clintons in the back all at the same fucking time.

This is the missing part. All of the other shit would not have mattered but the Dems were fractured and the solid south was falling apart into a Repuke stronghold. Every other Southern Dem had blood on their knives from stabbing the party in the back on a host of issues and the rest of the Southern Dems were demonized as part of the same by the other side of the party. Once again this is happening all at the same time as the Republicans were putting together a coherent disciplined media strategy.

All the years of think tanks and southern strategy work suddenly coming to fruition with Gingrich's Contract that he took out on America.

More than anything the timing of all of this played right into a disciplined an united Republican party hungry for power and slick as hell in their media attack.

Whatever meme the Repukes wanted on the front pages ended straight there on the front pages.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.